Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday June 25, 2007 @07:34PM
from the what-goes-around dept.

DaveAtFraud writes "Tanya Anderson, the single mother from Oregon previously sued by the RIAA — which dropped the case just before losing a summary judgement — is now suing the RIAA and their hired snoop Safenet for malicious prosecution. (Safenet was formerly known as MediaSentry.) Anderson is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. A reader at Groklaw has already picked up that she is seeking to have the RIAA forfeit the copyrights in question as part of the settlement (search the page for '18.6-7')."

whatever the reasons, i hope she wins. if she wins the case, the riaa is done for. if she settles out of court, they will be bled dry by similar cases. either way, wethepeople win, and the evil empire begins to crumble. yes, i called the riaa an evil empire. and here comes the corporo-fascist trolls to flame me to death... (see below)

The moderation system has issues - that being the human tendency to claim that any conflicting viewpoint, no matter whether it's expressed in a sane manner or not, is "trolling" or otherwise needs to be censored.

We have meta-moderation to try to help, but all that does is show that abuse exists; it comes far too late to reverse it properly.

Well, when a system is as corrupted as the justice system is, sometimes the only way to beat it is to use it. If we can be sued and forced into a settlement, why can't we do the same to the jerk-offs who do did it to us? Imagine the dollar signs in lawyers across the country when they learn that they can be part of a settlement with a major record label.

Nope. Her asking for every claim under the sun sounds like a seriously pissed off lady whom has been accused of crimes without (sufficient) evidence, threatened, and who fought back. In doing so, the was close to having the court rule in her favor and the other side quited the case. Now she's doubly pissed off thinking the other side is going to walk away without having to face up to their false claims and have it stated in court that the was innocent.
Some times people do things for reasons OTHER than money. Not often, and in this case payback might not be motivated just for face (and I'm sure her attorney at this point is on contengency), but give her some credit for wanting the RIAA to have to lose for once, not just to plump up her retirement fund.

The ultimate revenge is to force it through the courts right to the end, it doesn't matter about the payout but mainly to set a precendent that everybody else attacked by the RIAA can use to beat them in court. A revenge that will last for years to come.

I think that her attorney may be able to get some traction on the claims of state and federal RICO charges, and suspect the RIAA and associated organizations are going to really get hurt by this one. At first glance, this appears to be a real stinger of a lawsuit. Reading the lawsuit makes it clear that far more than a few copyrights are on the line. The RIAA has been formally challenged to a battle to the death.

And doesn't she know that copyrights are worth $150k a pop per person to these people?! Considering that the RIAA thinks everyone in the country listens to every single song, that's a punishment of something like $50 trillion per copyright!

Which also puts the RIAA on the spot to provide a "reasonable" valuation on copyrights for the purposes of settling. Watching the RIAA place one value on copyrights for defending a legal action and a different value for prosecuting could prove entertaining.

I don't think so. The pie is high now - I think it is intended to show that the RIAA isn't the only party capable of an all-out offense. As most of the claims by the RIAA are frivolous anyway, this might put the claims in perspective, at least in the eyes of the public and hopefully in the eyes of the judge. It isn't about winning with this point, it's about making the legal system reconsider some well-defined boundries in what is acceptable for the RIAA to do.

Perhaps this is a tactic to force a settlement, since every one of their tactics would be placed before a jury, in an atmosphere where they could hardly be despised more. I doubt the RIAA could actually lose the copyrights since I doubt they own them in the first place, but it would be interesting if she expanded the suit to include the owners on whose behalf the RIAA operates. All I know is, if I'm a juror, those copyrights are G-O-N-E. How willing is the RIAA to take the chance that a juror who decides ag

I believe that you will need to get someone from the Department of Justice (either Oregon or Federal) to press charges, you can't turn a civil case into a criminal one. I doubt either of them will, but this does look like it is gift-wrapped for them. If you believe the case should be prosecuted, you should contact the local DoJ offices in Oregon.

Citizens are prefectly capable of filing criminal charges against another entity. The DA can, of course, decline to take it to court, but on an issue like this, with enough press, they can be backed into a corner and effectively forced to do so.

The complaint seeks forfeiture of the record companies' sound recording copyrights in the recordings alleged to have been infringed. If Ms. Andersen wins, the record companies will lose the actual copyrights themselves.

I would just like to extend a genuine THANK YOU to you, NewYorkCountryLawyer, for being here on Slashdot and keeping the record straight. You're just the sort of person this site needs more of. Please keep up the good work.

Perhaps this is a tactic to force a settlement, since every one of their tactics would be placed before a jury, in an atmosphere where they could hardly be despised more

You have a remarkably naive notion of the jury pool, which is typically middle-aged, middle class and small-C conservative.
It is the function of the judge to narrow the issues in dispute, define them for the jury - and to de-fang the advocate who plays too much to emotion.

More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?

No, she doesn't, BUT, the RIAA is an agent acting on behalf of the label. In that capacity, not only is the RIAA liable for their behavior, the label is on the hook as well. If the RIAA claims this not the case, then all legal actions brought by the RIAA for infringement are falsely represented and that places them on a completely different hook for completely different violations of the law.

Either which way they try to wiggle, this is not a happy place for them, which means it's a very happy place for the rest of us.

Because I think the RIAA can afford to keep this in legal limbo land for a while. Even so, it's nice to see someone go after the RIAA on RICO because there have been instances where they have crossed lines in my opinion. That being said, giving up the copyrights aren't going to happen because the RIAA doesn't hold them. They just represent the folks who do.

What really needs to happen is to get a couple of the hawkish Attourny Generals, like NY's, involved and looking into the RIAA's actions. They, actually, have some power to do something about the RIAA's tactics.

I'll give $10.00 to anyone that sues the RIAA about their mafia tactics.
I am sure another 10,000 people would do the same and yes a hundred grand will go a long way in fighting organized crime like the RIAA.

I am sure there is a lawyer who will take your money - and "take" seems the appropriate word here. Judges - appellate judges - do not throw around words like "organized crime" as carelessly as the geek.

Ever been to court? The impassioned little guy doing what's right doesn't exist. Or, more appropriately, he could not be detected. In a court, passion doesn't exist. Court is fucking boring.I'll never forget sitting in on a civil case where the impassioned wide-eyed rookie lawyer got up from behind his desk and starting waving his hands in the air like it was Law and Order, asking a question angrily. The bailiff put his hand on his pistol and the judge told him to sit the hell down.

She's not going after RIAA as such, she's going after everyone that makes up the RIAA, read the article:
"Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet"
It looks like she plans to sue them to hell and beyond for all kinds of illegal behavior when it comes to how they handled the case against her.

She's not going after RIAA as such, she's going after everyone that makes up the RIAA, read the article: "Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet"

I'll take it as a general rule that it is better to go into court with a rifle than a shotgun.

There's more to it than that. In most of the U.S., you are forced to go into court with a shotgun because you are only allowed one shot. Rather than taking your chances on one well-placed shot, you want to hit all potential targets at once to increase your overall expected outcome.

Keep in mind, in civil cases (such as this one), there are many hurdles in obtaining a judgment in correlation with the RICO act. Point being, it's not that easy. The RIAA is more concerned with their technique for accusing people remaining legally sound than being pummeled with a RICO civil case.

One of the claims is that private investigators in Oregon need licensing. MediaSentry was not licensed in Oregon, and KNEW this (or SHOULD have known, since they claimed investigative expertise). Thus EVERY MediaSentry investigation in Oregon (and other states) broke the law. Systematically. Since the investigations where illegal, the demand for compensation is extortion, and ORICO applies.

... unless Copyright Abuse was one of the charges, I fail to see how it would be usual to forfeit copyrights.

Given that Count 13 IS "Misuse of Copyright Laws" and, in that count, paragraph 18.6 claims "Such actions constitute a misuse of copyrights, and lead to a forfeiture of the exclusive rights granted to defendants by these laws." I'd say the conditions you ask for are met.

"Who shall watch the watchers?" is a problem posed millennia ago. In the case of police violating the fourth and fifth amendments, the answer the courts found was: "If you cops/prosecutors break the law in collecting evidence for a case, all that evidence - and all evidence collected as a result of it - is thrown out. Keep YOUR act clean or you lose the case."

Similarly congress has said: "Copyright gives you certain exclusive rights for a (long) time. It's hard to play 'whack a mole' with all the infringers, so we're giving you draconian penalties to make an example of those you do catch, to make examples of them and scare off others. If you misuse these rights, you lose them - not just for THAT case, but FOREVER."

If the court rules "You misuse the copyrights, you lose the copyrights" it will, IMHO, be correctly interpreting the law. Setting up a situation where the RIAA and its members get judgments when they go after a real copyright violator but lose the copyright on the songs involved if they maliciously or negligently prosecute an innocent non-violator would create a DANDY incentive for the RIAA to abandon its reign of terror and do their best to be squeaky-clean on any cases they pursue.

As many have already said this will be very expensive. What if the idea is to start the suit with lots of publicity and then get others to join and gain class action status? The more that the tactics get exposed to the public the better chance of an outcry getting relief for everyone. It really boils down to a publicity fight. If people believe that the RIAA is defending artists they like then the real issues won't matter. Convince them that making a mix tape of any music might get you prosecuted and things change. Education of the masses is the only way to solve the problem.

...that they don't lose this case. Having it on record as being successfully prosecuted under RICO would solidify and make official their reputation as a criminal organisation.

It would also be a major victory for piracy in general, because it would mean that if the RIAA want to call pirates criminals, the playing field would then be level...which would also make the RIAA hypocrites.

Most of the facts in the case have already been litigated, and the RIAA lost.
The counterclaims arise from facts already on the record. The RIAA's actions are a matter of public record. And they did a whole range of things ranging from really dumb to possibly criminal.

First, their investigation unit, SafeNet/MediaSentry, isn't a licensed private investigator. So they don't have any of the immunities a private investigator does. Normally, law firms use licensed private investigators for their investigations, but the RIAA didn't bother. Bad move.

Second, there's a clear case for fraudulent debt collection. It's already been established in court that the RIAA's claims were false, and that they knew they were false, yet they continued collection efforts.

On the harassment front, the RIAA's representatives apparently attempted to contact a 10 year old child's elementary school under false pretenses, pretending to be a grandparent. The court had to issue a protective order prohibiting the RIAA from contacting the kid. That's going to be tough to explain to a jury.

There's more, but the RIAA is going to have a very tough time in court on this one.

The MAFIAA will attempt to drag this out as long as possible (10-20 years probably) all the while dangling a settlement worth tens of millions of dollars in front of her. It would take a *very* principled person to go through that, even though she is in the right, while forgoing all of that money in the meantime for an uncertain reward (the legal system sometimes delivers surprises after all). It may be impossible for her anyway unless she gets some legal help from the likes of EFF or Groklaw behind her to see the case through to the end. I would like to see the MAFIAAs toes held to the fire as much as anyone, but as the parent has said this is a shady organization that resorts to questionable tactics. I wouldn't put it past them to engage in a campaign of threatening phone calls, scary surveillance people, and assorted harassments (ala the big tobacco lawsuits) to 'convince' her to accept the settlement. If I were her, I would be seeking some dependable bodyguards to fend off the MAFIAA goon squads.

Sorry. You read something that looks like it's of interest and you try to summarize why it's interesting in a sentence or three. She is suing all of the members of the RIAA which is another way of saying she's suing the RIAA.

Hmmm...I have mod points, but instead of just clicking Troll I'll assume you're serious and respond that way. Read the FA and tell me this isn't about extortion, plain and simple. It is also about deterrence, in the sense of the RIAA trying to deter people from defending themselves against baseless charges. The RIAA have no case whatsoever against this woman. Never did. At this point they're simply protecting their techniques for suing anybody anytime on the flimsiest of evidence. This woman has good lawyers and they recognize that she is not only innocent, she's *so* innocent that her case has good chances for setting precedent. With a good, solid precedent, other lawyers with other clients will have an easier time defending themselves.

Hell, old school Mafia protection rackets also serve the purpose of "deterring" people. Deterring them from living their lives in peace without paying money to the Mafia."Such a nice shop you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, you know what I mean?"

And since the RIAA lawsuit's boil down to:

"Such a nice house you've got there. Be a shame if you were to lose it in, say, a lawsuit by a multinational cartel against your family. Now, how about an out of court settlement for a few thousand,

Keep in mind that the way the RIAA and the music corporations are setup the RIAA will not make money. They will be operated at a loss. The music companies are the ones awarded the settlements since the hold the copyrights. Besides lawyers are relatively cheap when they are on salary. Consider that once the lawyers are on the books they might as well be suing people so they can bring in some money. So while you are correct that the RIAA is not "making money" that is not their purpose. They are there to make money for the record labels. They even say so on their site "The RIAA is an organization committed to helping the music business thrive." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php [riaa.com]

From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman. They really just wanted to assert their IP rights, they typically dont want whatever money would be awarded from a trial against some random individual.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but like hell they didn't. It's pretty clear these guys see the "threaten 'em all into paying" strategy as a moneymaker and a way to set an example. Both interests are served by bankrupting average Joes and Janes.

They knew, exactly what they were doing. And IMHO they deserve to pay the price, far more than some kid who innocently downloads a song and gets taken to the cleaners for $4000 neither they nor their parents can afford.

Every time I read something like this I cant help but roll my eyes. 4000 dollars may sound like a lot of money to the average guy on the street, but think about how much they are spending running this whole legal operation. You have to pay people to investigate it, people to organize contacting everyone involved, and then hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in legal fees for anyone who doesnt immediately settle. Any quick back the envelope math calculation should immediatly reveal that this

It should also be clear to anyone with a brain that this is what the RIAA means when they say they are going to "educate" the public. I already know a lot of people who won't go near P2P programs because of these tactics.. regardless of the fact that we're in another country and the RIAA don't "service our area". The education program is working.

And that doesn't mean that anyone has a right to supress your wrong opinion. They should embrace it and use it as a good example of how poor your math skills are.. not try to hide it like they are afraid you might be right.

There are differences of opinion, but there are also posts that are inflammatory.Now, given that someone was dragged to court, despite the evidence saying that said person was innocent of all wrongdoing, and the case was pushed, in the hope that they'd run out of money and fold..Given also that rather than face a judgement against them that would set a precedent that they were dead in the wrong, the RIAA just drop the case, and walk away with the premise that there's no comeback at all.

That is a highly inflammatory remark to make. The defendant did NOT get away lightly. She was harassed, threatened, and abused. By all measures, it is quite possible that the RIAA will be found guilty of extortion in this case (not all, by any means, but a strong possibility in this, as discovery has already uncovered a lot of illegal processes performed by the RIAA and their agents).

Modding the GP poster as a 'Troll' in this case would probably be better served by a 'Flamebait'. Whether by lack of understanding of the issues, or a deliberately crafted attempt, it serves the purpose of largely being both wrong in the detail (though there are mitigating parts, such as mentioning that not all cases are wrongly brought; the GP just doesn't follow through the logical progression and admit that this case WAS wrongly brought and prosecuted, thus bringing it into the realms of extortion. They merely say that some cases were correctly brought, thus all cases are warranted, which is NOT correct) and in the conclusion.

Now, modding up says that a post is insightful, informative, or similar. Given that the post uses spurious logic (taking a false premise, and building a logical chain of sorts on top of a false premise; in this case that given one case is valid, all cases are therefore valid) AND presents the resulting conclusion in a manner that can be deemed inflammatory (an innocent person harassed and hauled through the courts with the aim of wrongfully obtaining money is deemed to have got off lightly when charges are dropped), modding the post up as insightful OR informative is just plain wrong; it is plainly neither.

I'm all for debate; There are posts on here that I vehemently disagree with, but as they're presented with a rationale that fits facts, I concede they have a point, and have to re-think my own opinion. Sometimes the facts support many opinions. And that's ok.

However, when the opinion does not fit the facts, it is wrong (and thus can't be either informative, or insightful).Presenting the falsehood in an offhanded, condescending fashion is, like it or not, either flamebait, or plain trolling (attempting to derail incisive discussion by presenting falsehood likely to produce a vehemently emotional response rather than an educated an well thought out one).

OK, since you and a few others are claiming that I am factually incorrect I will respond and ask how. They had her IP address didnt they? Thats an honest question, I cant imagine they went after her without an IP address. And please dont respond with some discussion about dynamic IP addresses and so forth, I mean the IP address that was assigned to her at the time they found shared files. If they didnt have an IP address or some other way to identify her how on earth did they find her?

Jorghis, they lost. They sued Andersen knowing their process was error-prone, and they lost on the merits. This has already been litigated.

They supposedly had an IP address, gathered by an unlicensed private investigative company. One of the problems is that they didn't know whether or not it belonged to her, and they knew of that flaw. What's more, they were presented evidence that their claims were in error, and they sued anyway.

Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent, it isnt hard to completely remove some files from a computer. Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing.

It's a lot harder than you seem to think. Anyone who has ever analyzed a hard drive knows that the wiping of specific evidence can be pretty glaring.

Of course, in this case we're talking about the absence of ALL evidence. There was no evidence she had done this. None. No pattern or history of filesharing; no connection of the unique Kazaa name to her (actually, identifying the likely culprit was pretty simple with a Google search), no similarity between Andersen's obvious music taste and the files that were shared. Simply an IP address, which may or may not have been hers at the time. History indicates that the matching of IP addresses after the fact to individuals is actually a rather flawed process.

And the RIAA knew all of this, and even admitted as much. Did you read the filing?

So perhaps you still wish to condemn her because she didn't "prove" her innocence. Of course, that's not the way our justice system works. But you'd have to be pretty hard up to see her as suspect to insist that she could be guilty, regardless.

Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing. As long as they found her IP address sharing copyrighted material I dont see what the problem is.

Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.

If they couldnt get enough evidence on top of that to get a guilty verdict that doesnt necessarily mean that suit was motivated by malicous reasons.

Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.

I mean come on, it costs WAY more than 4000 dollars to go through with a lawsuit like this, if she was innocent they would have no logical reason to pursue it.

Oh, really? How about their explicitly-stated rationale that they didn't want to encourage others to defend themselves? How about the fact that they still hoped she would settle, and they could chalk up another "win" on their record?

Do you really believe that they were sueing her just to be dicks? It makes no sense.

Partially, yes. Partially because they know their "threaten-em-all" PR campaign is a house of cards into which they're totally invested.

I have a very cynical reaction to cries of "person XYZ was sued by the RIAA and is innocent". I mean, its so easy to find people who are guilty that it just seems ridiculous that they would go after someone who has done nothing in spite of all the costs involved.

Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case. The RIAA's actions weren't what you seem to think they were.

All that being said, if she actually is innocent I hope she wins, but I doubt that is the case and if it is she is a very small minority among the people getting sued.

As I said above, for all intents and purposes the RIAA lost on the merits, and there's absolutely, positively no evidence Andersen did anything wrong. By contrast, there's significant evidence the RIAA knowingly pursued baseless allegations in furtherance of a PR campaign.

This post is not flamebait nor troll. It's called a debate. Let's debate it and have a discussion not a "The RIAA sucks" party. This person is not very correct, but let's use it as a chance to educate, not obliviate.

This woman should just leave it alone, she already caught a break with the charges being dropped.

WTF? They sued her and tried to ruin her life even after they knew they had no credible evidence against her and you think it was her lucky day when they dropped their case right before the judge was about to throw it out of the court anyway on summary judgment?

If someone intentionally runs you down with their car are you lucky if they run away when the cops arrive? (for the metaphorically impaired: I'm equating the cops arriving with the impending summary judgments that led the MAFIAA to drop their case). Wouldn't you try to sue them for you medical bills? How is that any different from her suing them for the legal bills they caused her to incur to defend herself against their bogus charges?

Wow. Okay.From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman.

No, they just picked someone who didn't have the money, and gave them a choice between losing some money, or losing more. Without really providing any evidence -- notice the part where they dropped the case right before having a summary judgment issued against them. They knew the case had no merit.

The cost of running this whole operation dramatically exceeds whatever they could make in settlements and verdicts.

And how are they breaking the law? They are going through the proper legal channels. They have lots of expensive lawyers making sure they are complying with the law, and despite what you may read on Groklaw, they really arent doing anything illegal. I suppose you could try to make some argument about how looking at what someone is sharing on a P2P network is illegal somehow, but I think thats a huge stretch. I am sure there are some other technicalities that I am unaware of that could be stretched if yo

I am not American, nor a lawyer, but my understanding is that they are doing a couple of things which very much violate the spirit of the law.

First, they file John Doe lawsuits, then use the discovery privileges they attain as a result of having those lawsuits filed to gather more information. As soon as the necessary information is gathered, the drop the original lawsuit (and offer settlement or go to court for a real lawsuit etc). The important thing here is that the John Doe lawsuit is never meant to be anything other than an abuse of process to give them wider investigative powers - definitely a violation of the spirit of the law.

Secondly, you get a knock on the door with a lawsuit from a multimillion (billion?) dollar company with the lawyers to match. Whether you've done something wrong or not, the temptation will be to buy the next couple of years of your life back by forking over 2 or 3 grand - the alternative is to fight for a year or 2 in court at great risk and expense... I think we'd all accept that the US litigation system favours he with the deepest pockets - so right or wrong, you still stand a shot of losing.. they know most folks will not take the risk for a couple of grand - that makes it extortion as plain as the hairs on my arse.

Your statement shows me the sad state of the educational system when they do not teach basic law or (apparently) how to research and read. This woman is one of many that has to deal with the RIAA in this way. She is the first to actually fight back. She was wrongfully accused, and therefore had the right in the US legal system to get compensation for that. As for the RIAA doing something illegal, how is knocking at your door demanding $4000 or you'll be sued and might have to spent two to four times tha

They knew that this person was not guilty of the tort for which they were suing her.

They continued to press the suit while in possession of that knowledge, seeking a monetary settlement from someone who, they assumed, could not afford to fight them in court.

They engaged in tactics which the court in the case found to be illegal (e.g., having their investigator call a child's school and impersonate a family member).

They have a track record which indicates that this was not an isolated occurrence, but rather part of a pattern of deliberate violations of the law and various rules of civil proceedings.

The bad news for the record companies is that the first three items in that list can't really be disputed -- a court has already issued a finding as to their truth. Proving the final item is all that's needed to inflict ruinous damages on the RIAA and its member companies, and there's quite a lot of evidence to back that one up.

They have a track record which indicates that this was not an isolated occurrence, but rather part of a pattern of deliberate violations of the law and various rules of civil proceedings.

Deceptive business practice, racketeeering (Oregon and federal).

Is that illegal enough for you? One item not mentioned: They publicly declared that she was a "thief" and listed all the songs that supposedly she stolen which made her out to be racist while knowing that they did not really have any evidence against her. That would fall under libel and slander.

So you would have modded it troll/overrated just because you disagree with it and think the RIAA "doesn't have a lot of good karma"? Dont you see anything fundamentally wrong with that? Arent peer moderated discussions supposed to foster intelligent debate, not just modding down anything that the majority disagrees with?

Easy solution: sneaker net. Sneaker net may have been floppies in the old day.. but now people have CDs, DVDs, usb keys that can hold up to 10GB, external harddrives, and even freaking laptops. Sneaker net, it's the only way to share things.

In the early days of OCR, one of our attorneys wanted to see if he could scan a ton of his old hard copy docs into the computer and said he'd heard how wonderful scanners were. In spite of my repeated explanations of how immature the tech was (think 1.0), he insisted, so I had him send down a couple of docs for a test.

Needless to say, the resulting OCR scan was a ridiculous mess. The "old fashioned" font used for "United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia" came out as:

I find it interesting that not one person in IT (except for those that actually had illegal songs on the sys - they usually were admins running repos for p2p anyway) have been sued by the RIAA. I can't help but wonder if these vultures don't reseach their victim with the explicit notion of avoiding people with technical background (save the admin running a music p2p sys).

I personally don't think it's an accident, but I think it's attributable to the facts that

-all the cases are based on FastTrack, which technically sophisticated file sharers apparently haven't been using for years

--no technically sophisticated person bent on copyright infringement would be using his own computer, his own internet access account, his own wireless signal, etc.